Surgical endoscopy · 2024
Benefits and risks of using laparoscopic ultrasonography versus intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallstone disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Edebo Anders, Andersson John, Gustavsson Joss, Jivegård Lennart, Ribokas Darius, Svanberg Therese, Wallerstedt Susanna M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) or intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) can be used for visualisation of the biliary tract during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The aim of this systematic review was to compare use of LUS with IOC.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched (last update: April 2024). PICO: P = patients undergoing intraoperative imaging of the biliary tree during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallstone disease; I = intervention: LUS; C = comparison: IOC; O = outcomes: mortality, bile duct injury, retained gallstone, conversion to open cholecystectomy, procedural failure, operation time including imaging time. Included articles were critically appraised using checklists. Conclusions were based on studies without major risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to GRADE.
RESULTS: Sixteen non-randomised studies met the PICO. Two before/after studies (594 versus 807 patients) contributed to conclusions regarding mortality (no events; very low certainty evidence), bile duct injury (1 versus 0 events; very low certainty evidence), retained gallstone (2 versus 2 events; very low certainty evidence), and conversion to open cholecystectomy (6 versus 21 events; risk ratio: 0.38 (95% confidence interval: 0.15-0.95); I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Seven additional studies, using intra-individual comparisons, contributed to conclusions regarding procedural failure; risk ratio: 1.12 (95% confidence interval: 0.70-1.78; I2 = 83%; very low certainty evidence). No studies reported operation time. Mean imaging time for LUS and IOC, reported in 12 studies, was 4.8‒10.2 versus 10.9‒17.9 min (mean difference: - 7.8 min (95% confidence interval: - 9.3 to - 6.3); I2 = 95%; moderate certainty evidence).
CONCLUSION: It is uncertain whether there is any difference in mortality/bile duct injury/retained gallstone using LUS compared with IOC, but LUS may be associated with fewer conversions to open cholecystectomy and is probably associated with shorter imaging time.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched (last update: April 2024). PICO: P = patients undergoing intraoperative imaging of the biliary tree during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallstone disease; I = intervention: LUS; C = comparison: IOC; O = outcomes: mortality, bile duct injury, retained gallstone, conversion to open cholecystectomy, procedural failure, operation time including imaging time. Included articles were critically appraised using checklists. Conclusions were based on studies without major risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to GRADE.
RESULTS: Sixteen non-randomised studies met the PICO. Two before/after studies (594 versus 807 patients) contributed to conclusions regarding mortality (no events; very low certainty evidence), bile duct injury (1 versus 0 events; very low certainty evidence), retained gallstone (2 versus 2 events; very low certainty evidence), and conversion to open cholecystectomy (6 versus 21 events; risk ratio: 0.38 (95% confidence interval: 0.15-0.95); I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Seven additional studies, using intra-individual comparisons, contributed to conclusions regarding procedural failure; risk ratio: 1.12 (95% confidence interval: 0.70-1.78; I2 = 83%; very low certainty evidence). No studies reported operation time. Mean imaging time for LUS and IOC, reported in 12 studies, was 4.8‒10.2 versus 10.9‒17.9 min (mean difference: - 7.8 min (95% confidence interval: - 9.3 to - 6.3); I2 = 95%; moderate certainty evidence).
CONCLUSION: It is uncertain whether there is any difference in mortality/bile duct injury/retained gallstone using LUS compared with IOC, but LUS may be associated with fewer conversions to open cholecystectomy and is probably associated with shorter imaging time.